Why Mark had to be called Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by DCHindley » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:43 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:46 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:08 pm
How about the traditions he is said to have relayed?
The 2 Baruch thing is suggestive, and I agree there is something going on between Papias and 2 Baruch (whether directly or indirectly), but the only hard datum I can come up with for dating 2 Baruch is that it was written after 70. Scholars have their reasons for preferring certain dates (I have seen "around 90," "late first century," "early second century," and other ranges). But those ranges are, in my judgment so far, just as soft as the ones governing the dating of Papias. And a date in the late first century for 2 Baruch may already do little more than correspond with what Jax said about Papias postdating Matthew, since Matthew is often dated to the late first century. Again, however, the hard datum for Matthew is that it postdates 70.
In A F J Klijn's new translation of "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch" (in Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1, 1983, 615-652), he proposes the following possible dates. I have outlined them a bit to make the points "pop," but all the text is there:
Klijn wrote:[616] Date

Several passages help determine the probable date of the Apocalypse of Baruch.

1. 32:2-4 states that “after a short time the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. But that building will not remain because it will again be uprooted”; finally a new Temple will appear that will last forever.
1.1. In this passage two destructions are presupposed, indicating that the author lived after the destruction of the second Temple in A.D. 70.

2. In 67:1, the author speaks about the disaster that befalls “Zion now.” In 68:5, he writes about the restoration of the Temple.
2.1. If he assumes the view of Baruch, the author speaks about the destruction of the Temple in 587 B.C. and the building ‘of the second Temple without mentioning its destruction. In that case the author used a source that has to be dated before A.D. 70.
2.2. If, however, he is referring to the restoration of the Temple which probably took place in A.D. 130 during the time of Hadrian, then the “last black waters,” mentioned in chapters 69 and 70, might refer to the time of Bar Kokhba.5 [[5 See H. Bientenhard, "Die Freiheitskriege der Juden unter den Kaisern Trajan und Hadrian und der messianische Tempolebau," <e.t. for dummies like me: "The wars of liberation of the Jews under the emperors Trajan and Hadrian and the messianic temple construction,"> Judaica 4 (1948) 164-66.]]

3. In 28:2, it is said: “For the measure and the calculation of that time will be two parts: [617] weeks of seven weeks.”
3.1. This passage is thoroughly unclear and cannot be used to arrive at a date of origin.6 [[6 L. Gry, "La Date de la fin des temps, selon les revelations ou les calcula du Pseudo-Philo et de Baruch (Apocalypse syriaque)," <e.t. for dummies like me: "Date of the end of time, according to the revelations or calculations of Pseudo-Philo and Baruch (Syrian Apocalypse)">. RB 48 (1939) 337-56.]]

4. The passage 61:7 is quoted in Barnabas 11:9, an indication that the author of Barnabas knew this work.
4.1. It is, however, not quite clear when Barnabas was written. Two propose dates are A.D. 117 and 132.7 [[7 This depends on Barnabas 16:4, from which no certain conclusions can be drawn because the text is corrupt.]]

These passages [considered together], point to a date after A.D. 70, although the author probably made use of earlier sources.

5. In this connection the relation with 4 Ezra is significant.
5.1. If this work is dependent on Ezra, a date around A.D. 100 is probable.
5.2. A dependence, however, of both writings on common source seems the most acceptable hypothesis.
5.3. 2 Baruch is probably later than Ezra, since it appears to show an advanced stage of theological development.
While I can appreciate how he came to his conclusion(s), I am not sure I understand his logic.

R H Charles, as old as his analysis is (about a century), has a different approach:

The origin of the Syriac version, says Charles, "can hardly be sought later than the fourth century. It may be as early as the third."

He had hypothesized that the Syriac version was a translation from a Greek version. He does not offer a rough date for the original. The Greek, Charles proposed in 1896, was based on a Hebrew version.

A Greek fragment of this book was subsequently identified from the Oxyrhynchus excavation by Grenfell and Hunt. It was published in Oxyrhynchus 3 (1901) which dates the fragment to "not later than the fifth century, and perhaps as early as the end of the fourth." They are not so optimistic that a Hebrew original for the Greek is sustainable: "whether the Greek text is itself derived from Hebrew is disputed. Prof. Charles, who has published the latest and fullest edition of that Apocalypse, is strongly in favour of a Hebrew original, but his reasons are not very convincing, and the present fragment illustrates the precarious character of arguments based on retranslations into a supposed original through a version which is itself not extant."

Fun bunch to hang with, don't you think?


User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:52 pm

Isn't this the work where the narrator falls asleep in the orchard of Agrippa?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by DCHindley » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:31 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:52 pm
Isn't this the work where the narrator falls asleep in the orchard of Agrippa?

You're thinking of 1 Baruch from the Apocrypha, mate.

2 Baruch is not among the books of the Old Greek. This 'un is in Syriac, and there are fragments from the Armenian IIRC. The Greek fragment I had mentioned was not from 1 Baruch.

But look at 4 (Latin Apocalypse of) Ezra, which does not survive in whatever Semitic language it was originally written in.



Post Reply